Assuming bias IS the fallacy, which is absurd in it's own right chronologically.
How can there be bias if the findings precede the site in time?
Bias would be say RJ Reynolds funding tobacco and cancer research.
They could still provide factual results, thus the fallacy...
I am nonetheless confused how the NYPD could have been biased preemptively, to sell e-books that they do not profit from... lol..
Back to the stickies with you too...

You asked the man what he thought of a link. He commented on that link and some of the supporting evidence available through that link. Right here is probably the largest disconnect, he reviewed it as a whole rather than individually. The link that you presented to him in the first place is trying to sell books and 'aids' on point shooting. The source you originally handed to him is biased, plain and simple. The sources that they used are not. The NYPD? No, not biased, but the reasoning their study is used to support is. The NYPD study states the results of interviews with officers, which is that when involved in a shooting incident they used some form of point shooting about 70% of the time. However, they hit less than 20% of the time in those same incidents. It's a statement of what was used and who trains point shooting. The data presented argues against point shooting, if anything.

Originally Posted by ChenPengFi

Not exactly, the relevant quote is:

Let's try some different bold...
Quote:Depending on your definition of "point shooting," this may not have been a test of pointed versus aimed fire at all. It's a question of semantics. Many would define "point shooting" as any technique that uses a body position index to align the gun with the target, a technique in which the gun cannot be actually seen to be indexed with that which is to be shot.

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, all modern pistol stances use elements of point shooting whether you're using the sights or not and the great majority of the subjects used some piece of the firearm itself as a makeshift sight

Now, in other news... AIMED P and S... these guys are advocating running a finger alongside the firearm and using it to point and pull the trigger with the middle finger, correct? They'll also sell you a patented piece of L-shaped bar stock or plastic to glue to the side of your pistol so you can avoid having your finger eaten by the slide, causing pain and jams, right? This might help with the first shot, but every shot after that is going to be pretty wild, I'd imagine. I'd also argue that you only point your finger so well because you've been doing it so long.

Another thing that might help is to understand how you react to life or death situations. Different people react in different ways. I haven't been shot at and fired back using a pistol, but I have with long arms. While firefights are rare, you can probably get a good idea of how you'd react from a near miss in your car.

Oh, and a lot of what I was talking about with a practiced marksman bringing the pistol up into view already on target can be seen in the video linked below. His point shooting stuff seems to be designed for close quarters weapon retention where you really can't use proper sight picture because it's pretty much a fistfight already.

One option does not preclude the other, you are trying to have your cake and eat it.
The same reasoning applies in your example of shooting off of the hip, however if you NEVER practice point shooting you will be the one excluding a skillset.

Misdirection foul. You did not answer the question. Does point shooting preclude the use of sights, yes or no? Seems like you're the person trying to eat his own cake.

@wetware - beware, I've had interaction with ChenPengFi before - the troll is strong with this one.

I’ve never been in a gunfight, but I’ve been in stress inducing situations somewhat frequently (animal attacks, Dog Brothers gatherings, pankration tournament, working security etc) and one of the things I’ve noticed is that when I’m in high stress situations, my memory isn’t so good at recalling details. For example, in a stickfight I remember blocking, moving and striking, but I couldn’t tell you exactly where my stick was landing or how many times I got hit. I’m wondering if it’s possible that at least a few of the people in the tests actually used the sights but don’t specifically recall doing that so they figure they were using unsighted fire.

That is an excellent point, Codos. I'd also be interested to know if physiological/psychological response to Fight or Flight varies from incident to incident within an individual. For me it's pretty much always been the same.

You asked the man what he thought of a link. He commented on that link and some of the supporting evidence available through that link. Right here is probably the largest disconnect, he reviewed it as a whole rather than individually. The link that you presented to him in the first place is trying to sell books and 'aids' on point shooting. The source you originally handed to him is biased, plain and simple.

Your reading comprehension sucks and i explained why that was bullshit already.
I clearly referred to the "authors quoted".
That the website had already compiled the information was simply convenient.

The sources that they used are not. The NYPD? No, not biased,

ok, moving right along...

but the reasoning their study is used to support is. The NYPD study states the results of interviews with officers, which is that when involved in a shooting incident they used some form of point shooting about 70% of the time. However, they hit less than 20% of the time in those same incidents. It's a statement of what was used and who trains point shooting. The data presented argues against point shooting, if anything.

That they reacted in the way they did is a fact, as are the accuracy numbers.
What would you have them do, go back in time and try to use sights to improve the accuracy numbers?
I don't get your reasoning..
I understood the article to be asserting that they were UNABLE to do so due to stress etc.

Let's try some different bold...
Quote:Depending on your definition of "point shooting," this may not have been a test of pointed versus aimed fire at all. It's a question of semantics. Many would define "point shooting" as any technique that uses a body position index to align the gun with the target, a technique in which the gun cannot be actually seen to be indexed with that which is to be shot.

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, all modern pistol stances use elements of point shooting whether you're using the sights or not and the great majority of the subjects used some piece of the firearm itself as a makeshift sight

What's your point?

Now, in other news... AIMED P and S... these guys are advocating running a finger alongside the firearm and using it to point and pull the trigger with the middle finger, correct? They'll also sell you a patented piece of L-shaped bar stock or plastic to glue to the side of your pistol so you can avoid having your finger eaten by the slide, causing pain and jams, right? This might help with the first shot, but every shot after that is going to be pretty wild, I'd imagine. I'd also argue that you only point your finger so well because you've been doing it so long.

I do not advocate the style promoted by that site.
It seems clumsy and silly imo, although i am sure there are many people who can use it effectively.
I'd even go so far as to say the hand is not really designed to work that way.
Judo grip anyone?
They had simply compiled much information and as i stated it was convenient to link to that site because of it.
If you have some evidence to support sight shooting at cq ranges, i'm quite ready to read.

Another thing that might help is to understand how you react to life or death situations. Different people react in different ways. I haven't been shot at and fired back using a pistol, but I have with long arms. While firefights are rare, you can probably get a good idea of how you'd react from a near miss in your car.

Again, what is your point?
I have been held up at gunpoint.
When i was held up the kid had his pistol at waist level with NO sight picture and i was pretty certain he could hit me from the distance he was at.
I was cool as ice.
Does that prove anything? No...

Oh, and a lot of what I was talking about with a practiced marksman bringing the pistol up into view already on target can be seen in the video linked below. His point shooting stuff seems to be designed for close quarters weapon retention where you really can't use proper sight picture because it's pretty much a fistfight already.

Iíve never been in a gunfight, but Iíve been in stress inducing situations somewhat frequently (animal attacks, Dog Brothers gatherings, pankration tournament, working security etc) and one of the things Iíve noticed is that when Iím in high stress situations, my memory isnít so good at recalling details. For example, in a stickfight I remember blocking, moving and striking, but I couldnít tell you exactly where my stick was landing or how many times I got hit. Iím wondering if itís possible that at least a few of the people in the tests actually used the sights but donít specifically recall doing that so they figure they were using unsighted fire.

In one of the studies a full 10% reported not remembering if they used sights or not.
I imagine the real numbers being higher, as some people might be reluctant to admit such a thing.

Your reading comprehension sucks and i explained why that was bullshit already.
I clearly referred to the "authors quoted".
That the website had already compiled the information was simply convenient.

Your timetable is a little fuckered here. I understand that you'd like what you said to be "What do you think about the quoted authors on this site?"
What you asked was this:

Originally Posted by ChenPengFi

DK, do you have any thoughts on articles like this one?

Which does not specify further than the link you provided. I agree, the link is convenient. Can we be done with this?

Originally Posted by ChenPengFi

That they reacted in the way they did is a fact, as are the accuracy numbers.
What would you have them do, go back in time and try to use sights to improve the accuracy numbers?
I don't get your reasoning..
I understood the article to be asserting that they were UNABLE to do so due to stress etc.

What's your point?

Your turn to use a straw man?
My point is that if they were not using sighted fire and had less than a 20% hit rate. Certainly, some more training would help especially on transitioning from draw to a proper firing position and acquiring a sight picture on the way up.

The thing is they're already using a stance made for pointing and it does not seem to be helping much.

The isosceles stance is designed to use the entire upper body for point fire. It's kind of the reason why those stances exist.
I wasn't able to find the shoulder/point crouch stance their doctrine called for, though. I'd imagine it's more like a modified Weaver stance which also includes elements of point fire.

Originally Posted by ChenPengFi

If you have some evidence to support sight shooting at cq ranges, i'm quite ready to read.

Take a look at how the guy in the video I linked to operates, especially when he switches from weapon retention mode to sighted fire near the end of the video. He's acquiring the sight picture as it moves into his field of view, he even mentions moving it to 'front sight' in the 'high position'.
That is what I'm talking about when I say that if you practice enough you don't need point fire at less than touch range, even if you are at touch range there's techniques which are all about creating space to use the firearm at point blank.

Originally Posted by ChenPengFi

Again, what is your point?
I have been held up at gunpoint.
When i was held up the kid had his pistol at waist level with NO sight picture and i was pretty certain he could hit me from the distance he was at.
I was cool as ice.
Does that prove anything? No...

Then train using the sights and you'll probably do better than 20% hit rate.

Originally Posted by ChenPengFi

Are you asserting something that i have disagreed with?

I don't think the data you've provided supports your conclusions as well as you seem to think it does. Well... that and I don't like your attitude.

Your timetable is a little fuckered here. I understand that you'd like what you said to be "What do you think about the quoted authors on this site?"
What you asked was this:

Which does not specify further than the link you provided. I agree, the link is convenient. Can we be done with this?

In almost every subsequent post i referred to the research, not the site, clearly.

So according to the sources therein,

the research quoted

The authors quoted asserted

My point stands. read:read

Your turn to use a straw man?
My point is that if they were not using sighted fire and had less than a 20% hit rate. Certainly, some more training would help especially on transitioning from draw to a proper firing position and acquiring a sight picture on the way up.

What part about "unable" do you not understand?

The thing is they're already using a stance made for pointing and it does not seem to be helping much.

The isosceles stance is designed to use the entire upper body for point fire. It's kind of the reason why those stances exist.
I wasn't able to find the shoulder/point crouch stance their doctrine called for, though. I'd imagine it's more like a modified Weaver stance which also includes elements of point fire.

You are making unfounded assumptions.
The point was "unable" remember?

Take a look at how the guy in the video I linked to operates, especially when he switches from weapon retention mode to sighted fire near the end of the video. He's acquiring the sight picture as it moves into his field of view, he even mentions moving it to 'front sight' in the 'high position'.
That is what I'm talking about when I say that if you practice enough you don't need point fire at less than touch range, even if you are at touch range there's techniques which are all about creating space to use the firearm at point blank.

Again, what is exactly your point.

Then train using the sights and you'll probably do better than 20% hit rate.

How on Earth do you come up with that? Utter bullshit.
I never said i don't train with sights either, only that the theories presented to me seem to carry weight in the context of this site.
There have been numerous calls for any supporting evidence for the efficacy of sight shooting at close ranges.
Still waiting.

I don't think the data you've provided supports your conclusions as well as you seem to think it does. Well... that and I don't like your attitude.

I think you are attributing positions and conclusions to me that i have not made, and i could give a **** about the attitude part.
You're the one running in circles...